Delhi High Court
Rajiv Kapoor vs The Secretary, Central Board Of ... on 13 October, 2015
$~1
* IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
+ W.P.(C) 7587/2015
RAJIV KAPOOR ..... Petitioner
Through: Mr. Rajinder Wali, Advocate
versus
THE SECRETARY,CENTRAL BOARD OF
SECONDARY EDUCATION AND ORS ..... Respondents
Through: Ms. Anjana Gosain and Ms. Vishnu
Agrawal, Advocates for R-3
CORAM:
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJIV SHAKDHER
ORDER
% 13.10.2015
1. This is a writ petition seeking change in date of birth of the petitioner.
1.1 This petition, for the first time, was moved on 11.08.2015. At that
stage, there were three respondents in the writ petition. Respondent no.1
and 2 were effectively, the Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE).
On that date, my predecessor passed an order and put certain queries to the
counsel for the petitioner whereupon, the counsel for the petitioner dropped
the CBSE i.e. respondent no.1 and 2 from the array of parties. The writ
petition was dismissed in so far as the CBSE was concerned.
2. In so far as respondent no.3 [which is the only respondent left in the
case (i.e. the Airport Authority of India (AAI)], is concerned, once again,
my predecessor had put a query to the counsel for the petitioner as to which
are those Service Regulations, under which, the change of date of birth, was
permissible.
2.1 Since, the counsel did not have the regulations readily at hand, an
accommodation was given to the counsel to place the same on record.
2.2 Mr. Wali has since then filed the regulations in that behalf. The title
of the Regulations reads as :- Airports Authority of India (General
Conditions of Service and Remuneration of Employees) Regulations, 2003
(in short 2003 Regulations).
3. Briefly, it is the petitioner's case that his actual date of birth is
02.08.1968, whereas in the matriculation certificate, it is shown as
02.05.1967. Admittedly, the petitioner has been in service of AAI since
1992. For the first time, representation for change of date of birth was made
on 04.01.2013.
3.1 This representation was dealt with by AAI. Vide communication
dated 15-20/03/2013, the AAI, communicated to the petitioner that under the
Service Rules and guidelines, his application could not be "admitted".
4. The petitioner, admittedly, did not move the court in the matter till
August 2015. As indicted above, this petition came up before the court, for
the first time, only on 11.08.2015.
5. I am also told that the petitioner is holding the post of AGM (HR).
There is no explanation as to why the petitioner, for 23 years, took no action
for change of his date of birth. It is submitted before me by Mr. Wali that
this fact came to the knowledge of the petitioner only when his father
handed over to him an old file, which contained his birth certificate. Mr.
Wali, further contends that there is an obvious error as the parents of the
petitioner got married on 06.05.1967.
5.1 There is no way for the court to ascertain as to whether this assertion
of the petitioner is correct, that is, the supposed discovery of the fact that
there was a birth certificate available which showed his actual date of birth
as 02.08.1968. Notwithstanding the above, the petitioner is, in my view,
guilty of delay and latches as, even after 15-20/03/2013, he took no steps to
approach the court at the earliest. The delay between March 2013 and the
institution of the petition is not explained.
5.2 I may only note that Mr. Wali has also relied upon a judgment in the
case of R.K. Jangra Vs. State of Punjab and Ors., (2009) 5 SCC 703. A
careful perusal of the judgment would show that the Supreme Court, had
directed the employer to consider the representation of the petitioner, which
was filed on 08.05.1987. In that matter, the appellant before the Supreme
Court had been seeking a correction since 1981. It is in those peculiar
circumstances that the court issued the direction.
5.3 In the present case, the petitioner is clearly guilty of delay and latches.
6. Having regard to the circumstances adverted above, I am not inclined
to entertain the petition. It is accordingly, dismissed.
RAJIV SHAKDHER, J
OCTOBER 13, 2015
yg
